I Say Creationism And ID DO Belong In The Classroom

Let Science teachers use Creationism and ID to help explain what Science is and is not. Then you'd see the Intelligent D'Whiners and CREtins beating a hasty retreat.

They'd see it as a clear attack on their beliefs. Hell, they see their beliefs under attack constantly, with far less justification than that.

I do agree, BTW, that it would be the best way to present ID in the classroom. I'm sick of this debate, and I'm sick of their trying to make science out of thin air. But I fear that refuting them directly in the public schools would cause a firestorm of fundie fury that would take years to settle down. I don't want to give them any more ammunition than I have to.

...at every freaking opportunity!

Do NOT coddle idiots just because they believe some stupid fairy tale. Bring them down every chance you get. Tolerance is one thing, allowing people to DESTROY THE ENTIRE WORLD simply because they are afraid that their fairly stories are going to be proven incorrect is not acceptable. Make them understand that they are going to be sent the way of the dodo.

Which is an apt analogy...

who were true believers who would hold Bible study classes in the biology lab.

Creationism and ID have absolutely NOTHING to do with science.

to go off on silly tangents...

ELECTIVE bible and/or world religion classes are the answer.

elective bible or world religion classes. The purpose of public schools is not to teach them religion.

If students wish to pursue a career in religion then they should attend a parochial school. The alternative is to attend their sunday school and teen indocrination classes. And if parents are truly wanting their child(ren) to have a religious education then can also supplement their church and sunday school with home bible study.

World religion is something that can be found in a college if their are enough students expressing an interest.

schools teach a LOT more than the "three R's". But I agree, ID is not part of a science class...maybe in comparative religion or something...

subjectProdigal

can barely do their jobs and kids are confronted with all manner of societal junk. Let schools be schools.

parents have abdicated their role as the 'raiser of children' and are more than willing to let the schools (be they public or private) do the job...

sP

I can just hear the tape recorders whirring now!

discussion would never be allowed to happen. The people who push creationism, or ID as it is now called, simply want their religious ideas included in science classrooms. If they thought them through and applied the scientific method to them, they would not want them included in the first place.

No, they would likely push for classroom "presentations" from both sides, not real discussion. The presentations would then be slanted just like the public "debates" they engage by making the subject too general and devoid of detail and substance. They can't allow the discussion to go into things like molecular pathways, genetics, the fossil record and biogeography. To do so would call their credibility into question.

If they were honest about discussion, it would be reflected in their internal group activities. But as things are, nothing ever really changes with what they say and do.

:toast:

I'm an atheist too. I'm married to a Christian, albeit a liberal one. We agree on most things apart from the God and Jesus stuff.

science (evolution theories) on an equal grounding would propose. They do not have equal ground.

Sure that's why I refer to them as Intelligent D'Whiners and CREtins. Seriously, I can't think of a better way to demonstrate what a Scientific Theory is than to point out that Creationism and ID meet NONE of the neccessary criteria. My point is that stripping down ID and Creationism to their particulars is a lot like pointing out that the emperor has no clothes. Is that so difficult to grasp?

without offending students who are religious?

by the supporters of ID.

Better to leave it where it is, in church. Do you think science should be included in church services as a balance to faith?

trying to disguise science as religion and push it from the pulpit. Are you?

The point is that these folks (the ones from the Dicovery Institure et al) aren't being honest about their agenda. They're claiming the mantle of science for a duplicitous purpose; thrusting Christianity into the classroom.

"Historically, approaches resembling so-called "intelligent design" "stunt exploration and curiosity invariably cede leadership in innovation to other lands" Not so intelligent really.

There are wonderfully inspiring creation myths aligned with all cultures on the planet. There have never been only two.

Knuckleheaded dualistic simpletons are clueless. If we're gonna teach anything in schools, it could be perhaps, the works of Marie Louise von Franz. http://www.marie-louisevonfranz.com/b/cm1/ and/or the writings of Joseph Campbell. http://www.jcf.org/about_jc.php

Aaand uhhhh, I can't even believe I have to type this truism most obvious. Creation myths would be far better classified as Social Studies, World Cultures, or Religious Studies, rather than Science. ya know ?

Pastafarians and their hysterical response to idiotic fundamentalism are on the rise. (http://www.venganza.org) Though I'm sure there are many others.

Fundamentalism is driving the world nuts.

How about schools teach everything?

.. tarot, tea-leaf reading, numerology, astrology, and about a jillion other things?

The logical conclusion of this is that no "science" gets taught - kids only end up knowing what science *isn't*, rather than what it *is*.

How about:
(a) we only teach science in science classes, but
(b) we make a NEW class, called "non-science" where things that aren't science get taught.

Why anyone would want to take the non-science class is beyond me, but then again I'm not religious...

Let me explain where I got this idea. Two years ago, in my son's hs bio class, one of the students, an xian complained in class about the school "pushing" evolution. The teacher used her complaint as a "teaching moment" to explain why ID and creationism weren't science. Tommy, my son, said it really got through to several of the kids in his class who doubt evolution. Not that they suddenly disbelieved in ID or creationism, but that they more completely understood the lack of evidence for both. Gotta say, the teacher in question is a fantastic guy, passionate about science and kids, and a really good communicator.

along with the the rest of the ancient mythology.

Mighty Wotan! Take the blood of this human sacrifice and relate the story of how you slew the fearsome Frost Giant Thyrm with your spear! And from his bones you did make the land and from his blood you did make the waters and from his hair you did make the trees and his skull became the great vault of heaven.

WOTAN!!!!!!


Seriously, though Xiantians used force to destroy the venerable Norse Pantheon and they won't be happy until they force their gobbledygook down the throats of the rest of the world...

as well. . .and then we should fund a seminar in "Alien Abductions: They aren't just for Republicans any more". . .and then "Peyote Gods: Methods to clearly see the Creator."

suggests that I'm advocating teaching ID or creationism? Look, it's really very simple; ID is creationism thinly cloaked in pseudo scientific garb. It's an opportunity for teachers to explain exactly what constitutes scientific inquiry to examine ID briefly, side by side with evolution. It can be done quickly and respectfully.

Some folks on this thread have raised valid objections as to why this might be a lousy idea: It might create more of a fuss than it's worth and further stir up the fundies. That may be true, but your comment seems to miss my point.

my intention was to point out that THEIR idea of intelligent design deserves no more discussion merit than anything else in science. I would think a voodoo priestess could mount just as much of a "scientific" argument for their practice as an "intelligent designer." And the UFO people could likely be more scientific about their contentions than a creationist. Why limit the comparison to just fundy stuff? I say stack it up against other beliefs which might make creationism look even less scientifically constructed.

something like "not evolution" or "anti-evolutionism". Their whole argument is about how it could not have happened through evolution; therefore, it must have been through a creator (who obviously didn't use evolution).

this would play right into their hands because they would claim to be singled out for some kind of viewpoint discrimination. It doesn't matter that ID isn't science. They create the illusion that they are being discriminated against and the facts of science are not the issue.

their ongoing persecution argument.

The schools should teach science and critical thinking skills. The churches should stick to religion. Hopefully, students will figure out a way to make sense of the conflicting information.

In creating the universe, He created all of us with memories of a 'past' in order that we act with pre-determined motives and rationales and for other reasons known only to Him. All that we think we know was part of that Creation.

This, my friends, is the logical end point of what Creationists and IDers employ as a rationale for their positions. If we are to deny the 'evidence' of our ages-long studies and accumulation of knowledge as mere contrivances by an all-knowing and ineffable God, then we can just as easily posit that Creation occured a mere instant ago.

right about the time I was born. ;)

Perhaps, they should be only in their most basic forms, and discussed in the same way that geocetrism, flat Earth, and Aristotle are discussed.

In other words: about six minutes of what pre-scientific peoples thought about the natural world.

Given any more time to mythology in the classroom quite simply unacceptable.

But not in a Science class.

I want the right-wing fundies as far the hell away from public school classrooms as possible, unless they want to play on level ground with Buddhists, pagans, Hindus, Muslims, and so on -- in a philosophy course examining a world of diverse beliefs.

makes no sense

After all, we want everything to be fair and balanced, don't we?

Science is not cloaking itself in religion and trying to seduce its way into churches. Period.
ID and Creationism are pretending to be Science. Why, therefore, is it not legitimate to use them to point out, what for example, a scientific theory?

BTW, quite a few scientists think such an approach is legit.

Which is why I made my suggestion.

If the Fundies insist on instilling religion in the schools, then let us insist on instilling science in the church. Perhaps if someone got ballsy enough to make such a demand they might just see how absurd they were being with their insistance that ID be taught in science classes.

Science is for school. Religion is for church. Period.

That would really NOT work. The entire public education system in the US needs to be keelhauled--it's more about controlling children than teaching them. Don't give the fundies even the semblance of a chance to do this.

I agree with your intent, however the reality is that you cannot assume that everyone teaching science will follow your line of thinking. Just as the fundies have packed school boards with like minded individuals, science class rooms can just as easily be filled with zealots. If you allow ID into science class you will soon find a cadre of adherents pushing the christian version over science, casting science in a negative light to meet their goals. Look at the Dr Dino site for a precursor.

I recall a recent thread about teaching the Bible as literature in schools. The fundies weren't content just to have the course in schools, they wanted to make sure it was taught by Christian teachers. This would be no different. They would insist that ID/Creationism be taught by Christian teachers, with all of the applicable proselytising for ID over evolution.